If Universe is not expanding from some previous ‘tighter configuration’, how do you explain the red shift?
Commands you? Are you hearing voices?
Since you reject what is plain in the text that in six days God=Jesus created the heavens and the earth. That through him nothing that was made was made apart from him.
Why is it that somehow you now see something in the bible as literal?
Have you ever heard of Ala carte?
Quoting a liar does not make the lie change to truth. There are no “many evolutionists” who make any such claim and the author of that claim is simply inventing stuff to make you feel good about your prejudices.
More lies from the wrong side of the argument.
There were conflicting theories regarding the creation of elliptical galaxies, with several theorists putting forth the idea that they formed relatively quickly and others holding that they took longer to form. When the Hubble scope found some ancient ones, they discovered evidence that those who had proposed a rapid formation were correct. So rather than your false claim that they ignored the evidence from “new” information and changed the age of the universe, what we really see is that the astronomers are working with models that are actually confirming their theories. Obviously, when some theories contradict each other, one or the other (or both) will be shown to have been in error, but your distortion of the actual event looks like more testimony from the Nine Commandment Christians.
Oh I get it now :smack:
How could I have been so foolish ?
You start with the presupposition that the universe is the result of the Big Bang Theory. Then you postulate multiple secondary theories on the time and how they many have come to be as we see them now.
In doing so, no matter what you find, you can use it to confirm your first premise.
Oh, let’s get nasty! Perhaps you may have heard of the Gospel according to Matthew, specifically 22:34-40? And its parallels in Mark and Luke? It doesn’t get more explicit than that.
I presume that you don’t take literally the business about the mountains rising up and singing, and the hills dancing like sheep, when the Ark was brought to Jerusalem? Or that Jesus’s parables were actual accounts of the doings of real people? And the fable of the trees that Jotham told in Judges 9, that’s not a literal account, right?
We agree that the Bible has figurative language and literary forms in it. All we disagree on is what parts are straight reportage.
Yes.
Are you familiar with libraries? How they have different kinds of books in them?
Quoting a liar does not turn the lie into the truth. There is no large body (or whatever quibble the author attempted to pass with the word “many”) of “evolutionists” who have ever made any such statement.
Not foolish, simply as dishonest as your Denver mentor. (Do you follow Bob Larson, as well?)
No one “started” with any presupposition. A number of pieces of evidence were drawn together, indicating that the observable universe is expanding outward from a central point. When enough information had been gathered, a hypothesis was put forth that the universe is exploding outward as if from an original explosion. This hypothesis was given the popular name, “The Big Bang.” However, hypothesizing a starting point for the universe does not explain every aspect of every event in the universe. Those other events (such as the creations of different types of stars and galaxies) each need their own explanation. Scientists continue to put forth hypotheses for each of those events and test their hypotheses against observations.
Your claim is simply a dishonest rhetorical trick that attempts to divert attention from the poverty of your own position.
This addition to my original idea about what I think will be the ultimate retreat of the dinosaurs took a long time because I was trying to figure out your metaphors. I failed.
However, I’m hopeful, bordering on confident, that at some point the young-earth, literal-truth creationists will just fold their tents and change the subject to some other inanity.
Scientific evidence for evolution and a natural, as opposed to a supernatural, origin for life will not go backwards. I think it can only increase and all evidence that I see are that living, self-replicating molecules are not miraculous creations. I think that evidence will eventually bercome so potent as to remove doubt about the matter.
I’ve got news for you, Razorsharp. If you *had *bothered to read the thread, you would have found out that it started as an attempt to show that evolution was disproved by science. It has included statements very similar to your friend Fred’s. It has included explanations which show how such opinions are sadly lacking in any comprehension of how science actually works. It has included repeated requests for **Nolies **to provide some sort of supporting doucmentation when he’s made statements that he claims are based on science. Invariably, his response has been to move on to a new target without even bothering to respond.
As far as I’m concerned, when one party posts a statement or opinion, a second party provides contradicting information or asks for supporting documentation for a disputed claim, and the first party fails to even acknowledge the challenge or request, “refute” is an entirely appropriate word.
If you disagree with any of these refutations, feel free to offer a response to one or more of them.
Can you explain for me in the broadest simplest form how self replicating molecules can explain conscienceness.
Here is a PHD in the history of Geology explaining how Geology isn’t really all that scientific PHD
Well I don’t think we’re created anything. And no two people are equal, so no two groups of people are equal. But liberalism (and any non-bigot for that matter) involves treating people as people, not as a representative of a class.
Not that this has anything to do with creationism or this argument.
BTW, when I was a conservative, I was not a bigot, and neither were any of the people I worked with in the Conservative Party of NY.
Quit obfuscating. Sentience/consciousness is an entirely different situation. As for debating consciousness, I believe the best model is “the mind is what the brain does.”
Consciousness like ours has not evolved before because our neural structure is pretty much unique in this biosphere.
Besides, read up on protenoid microspheres.
I have to thank you for that, I nearly had diet coke shoot out my nose listening to the beginning of that mp3. The refrain of “Bob” in the background… ah… indeed does Slack find many ways into one’s life.
The mp3 is twenty-freaking-nine minutes long.
Currently he’s railing about people being able to specialize in the history of one scientific discipline, and how ‘the more you know about any specific subject…’ “the less and less you know”. Mmmmm hmmmm.
Now this guest is claiming that science came from the church. He should talk to Giordano Bruno of Nola. Something tells me that Bruno might just still be a bit, shall we say, hot under the collar as to his relationship with the Church?
This guest just said
“Modern science with it’s experimetal method was born in the assumptions of the Christian worldiew, and all, all historians of science today would agree to that…”
Forget wasting time with this. Mind citing your sources in anything other than an almost half hour long rambling conversation with an ‘expert’ who is evidently unaware that the Greeks figured out the earth was round, via experimentation, far before Yoshua Ben Yoseph walked the world…
So, why don’t you present a consistent theory of creationism, none of which has been scientifically disproven? And while you do it, make sure that you actually respond to the questions people give to you, and the refutations of whatever you post. You can visit talkorigins.org for a preview.
And while we’re at it, why don’t you give the identities of all the “evolutionists” your cite claims said African IQs were low. I trust the quotes are from after, say, 1950. 100 years ago many on both sides were racist. It’s so nice of you to say that scientific literacy is a liberal thing, but it isn’t really true.
No and that is beside the point. Just another of your smelly red herrings dragged across the path of any straightforward inquiry. No one claims that self-replication necessarily leads to consciousness. Bacteria are self replicated but I don’t think anyone claims they are conscious. And if I could sit down and explain how consciousness works in any manner, broad, narrow, simple, complex my reputation would be greatly enhanced.
Can you explain in the broadest, simplest form exactly Yahveh’s breath changed the dust of the ground into Adam?
What does an interview of Terry Mortenson by your hero have to do with this?
And just for the record. In all of the cites about Terry Mortenson on the net I didn’t find a single one that showed any geological study at all. It looks to me like he went to school and got a PhD in Geological HISTORY, not Geology, just so he could have the cachet of Doctor So and So and be an appologist for Answers in Genesis.
In the interest of keeping to the Straight Dope, it should be pointed out that Bruno was executed for being a priest who denied the divinity of Jesus and that his dabblings in science never came under condemnation by the Church.
Specifically, his thesis was based on an examination of the lives of the “scriptural” geologists of the early 19th century, so he never had to study or address actual geology as it has developed in the succeeding 200 years–he only needed to point out the manner that those who favored an account based on Genesis argued against their contemporaries with the limited information available to both sides at the time.
Wikipedia says that he was
“…excommunicated for his adherence to Copernicanism”
It also claims that his ‘final offense’ was teaching a science of mnemonics,
" He briefly functioned as a tutor to Mocenigo, who may have been disappointed that Bruno was merely teaching him a complex system of mnemonics rather than some form of magic. When Bruno attempted to leave Venice, Mocenigo denounced him to the Inquisition"
It goes on to conclude,
“Although the actual charge against Bruno was docetism, adherence to the doctrine that Jesus did not actually have a physical body and that his physical presence was an illusion, the world of science has long claimed Bruno as a martyr. Like Galileo Galilei, his Copernicanism was a factor in his heresy trial. Unlike Galileo, some of his theological beliefs were also a factor. Also, unlike Galileo, he refused to renounce his beliefs.”
Perhaps it is accurate to say that not only his (possibly hermetic) theology but also his scientific views contributed to his death?
In any event Nolies has already worn out the method that I predict will be that of all young-earth, literal-truth creationists. When someone asks him a question he changes the subject and responds with an irrelevancy.
Mortenson’s biography contains the following passage:
“In the first half of the 19th century, there were a number of Christian writers who raised Biblical, logical and geological objections to old-earth theories and to the reinterpretations of Scripture to harmonize with them. [bold added] These men became known as the ‘Scriptural geologists,’ …”
Notice that even at that early date Scripture was being reinterpreted to harmonize with scientific discoveries, not the other way around. It looks to me like this process will continue with the increase in scientific discoveries. With a more and more extensive fossil record Nolies, et al, will eventually be harmonized right out of existence.
Still awaiting Nolies’ response to my question about whitetail deer, anhingas, and Adam N Eve freezing their butts off in the Garden of Eden.
Yesterday being a long Sunday afternoon, and me having nothing else to do, I went through Fred’s column that Razorsharp directed our attention to, and then got called away and didn’t get a chance to post it yesterday.
- He discredits “science” because, he complains, scientists keep changing their minds.
This shows that he does not understand the basic process of Science, with its willingness, when the data do not fit the theory, to change the theory.
- Then he goes and gets the most ridiculous example of supposedly “scientific” thinking that he can find, and holds it up as an example of how silly Science is.
As a birdwatcher, I had never heard this, and on the face of it, it’s ridiculous–there are tons of “dirt”-colored birds out there, and none of them are particularly less vulnerable to predation by hawks.
This statement–“Enthusiasts of evolution then told me that guacamayos were at the top of their food chain, and didn’t have predators”–is also ridiculous on the face of it; no biologist would seriously have suggested that a macaw, no matter how “gaudy”, could be “at the top of the food chain”. Only predators get to be “at the top of the food chain”. Googling, I find the statement that the hyacinth macaw is “king of the food chain” and that it “has no predators” repeated on a few bird-lover websites–but not on serious biology websites, and not by evolutionists. All the serious biology/nature websites acknowledge that the hyacinth macaw “has few predators”, which isn’t the same thing as “no” predators, and that its predators include large snakes like boa constrictors, and birds of prey. Like Harpy eagles.
Hyacinth macaws generally weigh about 2-1/2 pounds. Making the harpy eagle one of the “few” predators of the hyacinth macaw.
Therefore, I conclude that Fred’s “enthusiasts of evolution” that he quotes in order to make Science look stoopid were just a couple of idjit hyacinth macaw fanatics.
- Then he makes sweeping generalizations:
Funny, I’ve never noticed this, especially in Great Debates.
- He gets hold of the wrong end of the stick.
No, it’s peculiar to Creationists that they imagine themselves in mortal combat with evolutionists. Who are the people who get up petitions to the local school boards? The Creationists. Who are the people who show up at school board meetings waving signs and demanding to speak? The Creationists. Who are the people who are convinced that the Other Side is the tool of Satan, and that nothing less than the souls of men is at stake? The Creationists.
Not the Evolutionists.
- And, once again, he gets it bass-ackwards.
No–it’s the Creationists who pay not the slightest attention to astronomers and their Big Bang, preferring to focus on the sciences of biology, geology, and paleontology. My theory is that this is because nobody except astrophysicists and a few high school geeks really “get” the Big Bang, but any sixth-grader can crack apart a geode or hunt for fossils on a field trip or dissect a frog, and then feel that he “gets” the science involved.
- He’s not going to tell us exactly which “Ivy League” evolutionists he debated.
Uh huh. :rolleyes: Now tell us, “I can’t tell you who they are, because then I’d have to kill you…”
Well, if he’s not going to tell us who they were, I guess we just have to take his word for it, don’t we? :rolleyes:
- This is just…stupid.
I mean, hanh? He can’t even be bothered to get his facts straight about giraffe vertebrae before tossing this into the mix?
His whole bit about giraffe and snake vertebrae shows that he doesn’t really grasp how the “accretion of successful point mutations” thing works–he’s missing the point that it takes place species-wide over immense stretches of time. Then, yes, a proto-snake can slowly add extra vertebrae, over millions of years. He’s missing that.
- He invokes the “how do you evolve an eye?” argument, betraying a lack of knowledge of the evolution of the eye.
- The “butterfly metamorphosis could not have evolved” argument is a familiar one. Addressed here.
He doesn’t understand that there is a difference between “switching stories” and the current level of brisk, many-layered theoretical discussion. Just because scientists don’t have something they can carve in stone as regards a “theory” doesn’t discredit the whole idea.
-
He invokes the “a mechanical watch could not have evolved” argument. 'Nuff said.
Earlier than what? It evolved when it evolved. Things happen when they happen.
- He makes sweeping generalizations bordering on, well, lies.
Um…no. They don’t.
- He cites The Bell Curve. 'Nuff said.
Whoever, his mysterious “evolutionists” are, they’re wrong: sub-Saharan birth rates have been falling steadily since the late 1980s. Cite.
- He can’t blame this one on mysterious evolutionists; it’s his very own thought…sorta.
No, they’re not. Israel has experienced a statistically insignificant drop in their birth rate, but it hardly amounts to “losing ground”.
This is just standard racist stuff here: “Blacks are taking over the world, the smart and rich Jews are nevertheless proving themselves unfit to survive [insert sotto voce “nyah” here].”
17. Annnnnd…then we get into the overt racism:
Uh huh.
-
Then he blames evolutionists somehow for the fact that Science does not explain why homo sapiens developed consciousness. Which is just dumb–that’s a question for philosophers and theologians, not biologists.
-
He misses the point:
Humans didn’t need a powerful sense of smell because they came to depend on vision, AND on fire, AND on a social group, AND on cooperative tool and weapon use, AND on shelter like caves, from which they could drive out larger animals using their cooperative weapon use and their fire use. If you’re sleeping with your back to a cave wall, with a fire burning at the mouth of the cave, you don’t need smell or hearing to protect you from predators. And during the day, moving in a group with many pairs of eyes watching, you don’t need smell or hearing.
20. Just plain wrong:
No, horses do not have particularly good vision. They have two blind spots, one directly in front and one directly behind; they have to move their head up and down to see up and down (all humans have to do to shift their focus is move their eyeballs–e.g. Beethoven looking up from under beetling brows); and they are mostly color-blind. Human vision beats 'em all hollow. Equine vision. Horse vision. Horse eyes.
- Misses the point, doesn’t understand the biology involved.
It takes good nutrition to grow feathers. It takes big nutrition to grow big feathers. A male with big feathers is a male that has ingested much better food, and more of it, than a male that has puny feathers, and therefore a male with big feathers is a much tastier breeding prospect to a female–he’ll be more likely to have big healthy sperm cells.
22. He misses the point about disorders like rH factor and anaphylactic-shock bee-sting allergies. They don’t threaten the survival of the human population as a whole, just of individuals within the population. They aren’t that common that they threaten the entire population.
- He misses the point about kidneys having nerves. Stephen Jay Gould says somewhere, “Not everything is adaptive.” Humans do have things like tailbones and appendixes and vestigial male nipples; the reason we still have them is that sometimes Nature doesn’t need to break down the machinery that it spent millions of years putting into place. It’s just more cost-effective to leave the leftover unnecessary bits in place. So at some point the organ that would become the human kidney had nerve endings, and it just never got around to being evolved out, because there would have been no reason. A human doesn’t die from kidney stone pain, so the genes for “nerves in kidneys” never got removed from the gene pool.
But he doesn’t get that.
- More sweeping generalizations.
I’ve never noticed this, outside of the occasional in-your-face I’m-an-Atheist-with-a-capital-A-you-got-a-problem-with-that? evolutionist. But evolutionists as a group are not intrinsically and automatically hostile to the idea of a Supreme Being personally tinkering with Planet Earth.
- He doesn’t practice what he preaches.
I don’t see any indications that he has ever tried to make a reasoned argument for evolution. All he’s done is demand that the evolutionists show him “proof”, apparently by “creating life” in an Erlenmeyer flask. Which is silly.
Again, he doesn’t tell us who the “evolutionists” were.
- Standard creationist argument. Which doesn’t hold any more water this time around than the last million times a Creationist invoked it.
You got to be kidding right I figured that these were rhetorical :smack:
Whitetail deer is the one of the most adaptible aminals on North america. Thus found in all climates. A testimony to great design.
The anhingas, what great design also if it was poor design how come it survies?
Adam and Eve were give the brains to have fire and clothe themselves.
Six days Baby, Six days!
That other guy quit listening to the mp3 when it got to close to dismanteling his strawman…
I’ll give Fred one thing … he manages to make **Nolies **look comparatively intelligent.